Miggytronz
Member
oh boy thats awesome. Windows FANBOYS are gonna flip out.chumps said:http://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/31...ndows-mostly-to-mac-due-to-security-concerns/
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
oh boy thats awesome. Windows FANBOYS are gonna flip out.chumps said:http://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/31...ndows-mostly-to-mac-due-to-security-concerns/
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
The problem then becomes that a lot of hackers will focus on OSX then. That has been one big reason that OSX has been mostly virus issue free is that there has not been much focus on it by hackers compared to windows.chumps said:http://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/31...ndows-mostly-to-mac-due-to-security-concerns/
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
What changed between OS9 and OSX? Marketshare is way up now, but there are still no viruses. They've had a decade to do it.PhoncipleBone said:The problem then becomes that a lot of hackers will focus on OSX then. That has been one big reason that OSX has been mostly virus issue free is that there has not been much focus on it by hackers compared to windows.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:What changed between OS9 and OSX? Marketshare is way up now, but there are still no viruses. They've had a decade to do it.
I made the mistake of reading some of the Google thread. I always thought that the professionals would go after a bigger target, but I also know security on OSX is still much tighter than Windows. And I dont think I will go back over to that thread either. I think the Apple vs. PC stuff is more vomit inducing than console wars.Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:What changed between OS9 and OSX? Marketshare is way up now, but there are still no viruses. They've had a decade to do it.
luoapp said:In the hack competition Pwn2Own 2010, Safari was the first to fall, followed by Internet Explorer 8 on Windows 7. Firefox on Windows 7 x64.
I am just saying.
ding.wmat said:The days of casual hacking are pretty much over, nowadays, the real threat is professional hacking. So the attention of the masses isn't as much a factor nowadays as it was in 2002, for example.
What's the distinction between professional vs. casual hacking?wmat said:The days of casual hacking are pretty much over, nowadays, the real threat is professional hacking. So the attention of the masses isn't as much a factor nowadays as it was in 2002, for example.
However the user still has to browse to the site so it can inject code. There will never be anything that can protect you from stupid users.luoapp said:In the hack competition Pwn2Own 2010, Safari was the first to fall, followed by Internet Explorer 8 on Windows 7. Firefox on Windows 7 x64.
I am just saying.
it's the difference between something like the Anna Kournikova virus and Conficker.RubxQub said:What's the distinction between professional vs. casual hacking?
Like white hat vs. black hat?
Oh absolutely. The user at the end of the day could allow any nonsense in on any operating system.scorcho said:it's the difference between something like the Anna Kournikova virus and Conficker.
also, just read this - http://blog.intego.com/2010/06/01/i...alled-by-freely-distributed-mac-applications/
the canard that Macs are immune to viruses and backdoors kinda misses the point that they are just as likely to be slipped in to purportedly legitimate software installations than through exploits.
SnakeXs said:That's like breaking a 99¢ lock on a door that leads to nothing, though. They find exploits but nothing ever develops from them.
rezuth said:However the user still has to browse to the site so it can inject code. There will never be anything that can protect you from stupid users.
It tells me I shouldn't be using safari on windows.luoapp said:What do you mean "leads to nothing"? Once pwned, it opens the door to everything -- "arbitrary code execution"
True. Users are always stupid. But the fact that Safari/Mac OS has been the first browser to fall for 4yr since the contest began should tell you something.
It tells you that it's a much more interesting headline than if Windows went down first.luoapp said:True. Users are always stupid. But the fact that Safari/Mac OS has been the first browser to fall for 4yr since the contest began should tell you something.
LCfiner said:It tells me I shouldn't be using safari on windows.
RubxQub said:It tells you that it's a much more interesting headline than if Windows went down first.
Pretending that which OS goes down first means which is the most vulnerable shows that someone doesn't know how the event works. The guy had the hack ready to go, so the moment he walked into the competition he just had to run it and it was his.
There's no reason why someone couldn't have just done this with a Windows or Linux system, it's just the dude does it on Mac systems to grab the headlines and to try and make a point.
PhoncipleBone said:The problem then becomes that a lot of hackers will focus on OSX then. That has been one big reason that OSX has been mostly virus issue free is that there has not been much focus on it by hackers compared to windows.
No, the distinction lies in the wanted result.RubxQub said:What's the distinction between professional vs. casual hacking?
Like white hat vs. black hat?
Don't you see how this format doesn't lend itself to "which platform is more vulnerable" at all? It lends itself to "which operating system's vulnerability can be taken advantage of the most quickly."luoapp said:Give me a break. There was a 10,000 dollars + 1 laptop prize hanging there. And you think Windows hackers would just risk losing the prize, so someone else could "grab the headlines" and "make a point"?
And of course everyone know the platform they were targeting, prepared for months if not years and have an exploit "ready to go".
OSX is always the first to go down at hacking competitions.mrkgoo said:I never bought this as the full reason. If it is to do with the size of the user base primarily, then it should be proportional. 10 x less users on Mac? Then we should see 10x less viruses. maybe if we,re being generous, 100x less. But we don't - we see none.
See above.Dreams-Visions said:OSX is always the first to go down at hacking competitions.
the interest just isn't there in the wild.
It IS bloated. All Adobe software is. It installs Adobe Air, whether you want it or not, which is just another piece of bloat if you don't use apps that need it. I had to literally put PhotoShop CS3 on a diet in order to cut it down to 40% of its original overall size because it installs all kinds of software that most people don't need without asking first. Adobe Reader is unneeded on OS X because Preview can view them right out of the box with a tiny little app that comes with the OS instead of a piece of bloatware. And yes, it IS bloat. Anyone who denies it just doesn't know what bloat is.Dreams-Visions said:alrightey. then you guys glow away your machine. lol.
if that floats your boat, don't let me get in the way. I was just offering an alternative option. But to suggest it's "bloated" is just stupid. I just opened it up and looked at my activity monitor. "bloated" is just silly talk. personally, I'd take the 30-second download and keep on moving than formatting and installing my OS.
Jasoco said:It IS bloated. All Adobe software is. It installs Adobe Air, whether you want it or not, which is just another piece of bloat if you don't use apps that need it. I had to literally put PhotoShop CS3 on a diet in order to cut it down to 40% of its original overall size because it installs all kinds of software that most people don't need without asking first. Adobe Reader is unneeded on OS X because Preview can view them right out of the box with a tiny little app that comes with the OS instead of a piece of bloatware. And yes, it IS bloat. Anyone who denies it just doesn't know what bloat is.
saelz8 said:Macbook Pro's come with the matte screen by default, correct? (Best Buy, specifically. If it's relevant.)
Didn't it used to be the other way around? Wierd. I was under the impression matte was cheaper material, and glossy was a premium feature. Guess not.Pseudo_Sam said:No, they come with the glossy by default. Matte is $50 extra I believe.
I don't know if that makes it better or not. the mac benefits from lack of volume, from what I can tell. that's fine with me.RubxQub said:See above.
No, it's always been that way. and the LED-backlit matte is a MUCH better screen. proper colors, no glare, no black/white crush. glossy is for suckers.saelz8 said:Didn't it used to be the other way around? Wierd. I was under the impression matte was cheaper material, and glossy was a premium feature. Guess not.
RubxQub said:Don't you see how this format doesn't lend itself to "which platform is more vulnerable" at all? It lends itself to "which operating system's vulnerability can be taken advantage of the most quickly."
Like you said, they have all the time in the world to come up with the hack, so the objective isn't to hack the OS, it's to hack it in a way that you get control in the shortest amount of time.
So OSX hands over the keys faster than Windows, but apparently is much better at hiding those keys? That's a valid observation, at least.
RubxQub said:So OSX hands over the keys faster than Windows, but apparently is much better at hiding those keys? That's a valid observation, at least.
quadriplegicjon said:The skill of the hacker is also another variable.. it could very well be that the Safari/OS X hacker is just more skilled than the other hackers.
Jasoco said:I don't believe that for a second. I'm sure there are plenty of hackers out there who have gladly spent time trying to hack into OS X the same way they do with Windows, if only out of spite just to shove it in Mac users faces. So why haven't we seen the same problems cropping up with OS X? Bingo.
luoapp said:notsureifserious.gif Really?Really?:lol
:lolLiu Kang Baking A Pie said:You've owned a Mac for like two days and you're already an elitist little shit.
Ashhong said:wait, define "in 64-bit mode"? i have insomniac installed and it works fine
quadriplegicjon said:The skill of the hacker is also another variable.. it could very well be that the Safari/OS X hacker is just more skilled than the other hackers.
I love spring loaded folders so much, I've turned the delay right down. Pretty much just hovering over a folder for a second will open it and act as a visual cue. I don't really get much of a chance to drop onto an icon anymore.NJ Shlice said:The process of clicking and dragging a file onto another folder is such a pain in the ass for me.
You have to land the file directly on top of the destination folder for the damn thing to move the file. Too many times I think the file is dropped on top of the folder and let go of the mouse button and I see a file sitting right next to or behind the folder. WTF. They need to increase the folder area that will accept a dropped icon.
mrkgoo said:I love spring loaded folders so much, I've turned the delay right down. Pretty much just hovering over a folder for a second will open it and act as a visual cue. I don't really get much of a chance to drop onto an icon anymore.
bad-joey said:How do you turn the delay down? Its pretty slow right now on my system
mescalineeyes said:finder, preferences, general, at the very bottom
mescalineeyes said:finder, preferences, general, at the very bottom
mescalineeyes said:finder, preferences, general, at the very bottom
mrkgoo said:I love spring loaded folders so much, I've turned the delay right down. Pretty much just hovering over a folder for a second will open it and act as a visual cue. I don't really get much of a chance to drop onto an icon anymore.
Zaraki_Kenpachi said:Wow, that's sweet. I'll have to switch mine too. The only thing I hate about moving files is when finder seems to hate having 2 windows of it open so they can be side by side and just changes what one folder is open instead. And while I remember, people said there is a way to have the file path at the bottom clickable right? Like they have in Windows 7.
mescalineeyes said:yessir; like so:
except, of course, for you it should say show path bar :lol
(if you meant to ask why it is not clickable, it always is, except, well, it's DOUBLE-clickable)
NJ Shlice said:The process of clicking and dragging a file onto another folder is such a pain in the ass for me.
You have to land the file directly on top of the destination folder for the damn thing to move the file. Too many times I think the file is dropped on top of the folder and let go of the mouse button and I see a file sitting right next to or behind the folder. WTF. They need to increase the folder area that will accept a dropped icon.
Mecha_Infantry said:edit* how do I get the file/folder location at the bottom of a window like that screen shot above?